Сlassification of Indian swords.

[rumpel9]

Finally, I did receive my long-standing purchase - an Indian sword, which I assumed could be called katti. Below you can see the photos. As Nihl pointed out quite correctly, the blade of this sword is made in the style of a Khyber knife. This sword can hardly be called katty.
But it is unlikely that this is the blade of a Khyber knife, with an Indian handle. The length of the blade is 73.5 cm . And at the base there is a brand - an Indian sign (by the way, no one knows what this sign means?).
How do you think this sword can be classified?

[Ian]

rumpel9,

You have touched on a very big topic and Nihl has discussed the complexities and difficulties of trying to generalize classifications across the Asian sub-continent. There are so many cultural variants, language differences, and individual geographical variations, that it is impossible to arrive at a comprehensive classification system.

We have varying degrees of scholarship in English to help those who do not speak the languages of the sub-continent. The books of Ellgood, Rawson, and Pant come to mind immediately, and there are others. Some have tried to do what you are attempting, to provide descriptions and classifications for major Indian weapons, and have mostly come up well short of the mark. It's just a very hard task and, with all respect, one that needs to be done based on extensive experience within the respective cultures, and an understanding of the complicated history of weapons, in the sub-continent. Those qualities are unlikely to be found in one person. Most likely, it will need a team of dedicated individuals to achieve the goal.

As collectors, we want to have a name for everything so we can classify and catalogue what we have. This is perfectly understandable. However, the longer I do this, the more I see of the "naming game" and the less convinced I become of its usefulness. I'm quite content with a descriptive classification, such as "Khanda with tulwar-style hilt, probably 18th-19th C, Sikh." To me that's an honest appraisal that says 90% about the sword and avoids too much speculation.

[Nihl]

Originally Posted by rumpel9

Finally, I did receive my long-standing purchase - an Indian sword, which I assumed could be called katti. Below you can see the photos. As Nihl pointed out quite correctly, the blade of this sword is made in the style of a Khyber knife. This sword can hardly be called katty.
But it is unlikely that this is the blade of a Khyber knife, with an Indian handle. The length of the blade is 73.5 cm . And at the base there is a brand - an Indian sign (by the way, no one knows what this sign means?).
How do you think this sword can be classified?

Rumpel, the mark on your blade is simply "po" (पो) in punched devanagari. This likely is an abbreviation of some kind of armory or other location (like how "bikaner" is typically abbreviated to just "bi").

In regards to its name, I very much agree with Ian's assessment of the situation. Too often people want a simple "name tag", of sorts, that they can apply to their items. In all reality, particularly with Indian swords, this approach rarely works, and a more descriptive name is required; one that gives a name to both the blade and the hilt.

As such, I would personally deem your new acquisition to (still) have a khyber knife style blade, but a standard tulwar hilt. It is somewhat tempting to categorize the blade as being sosun patta in style, given that, like a turkish yataghan, in the 19th century some sosun patta were made with t-back blades, however your example doesn't really have enough recurvature to warrant the name change IMO.
Also keep in mind, the tulwar hilt requires this sword to be used in a draw cutting fashion, so in function this sword would basically "work" the same as a standard tulwar, albeit maybe slightly better at thrusting.
Both components likely date to the 19th century.

[Mercenary]

The main problem is that in the Indian subcontinent, proper names, unlike European languages, were used only for significant things. For everything else, general generic concepts or derivatives from form, material, etc. were used. That is why most types of weapons have a name that is derived from the words "cut", "damage" and so. And, for example, "jamdhar" is simply “two edges.” I’ll write about “talwar” later, it’s very interesting, but long.
It is also need to take into account that the weapon although was of the same type, but the Mughals and Indians called it differently. But from these different names, it is necessary to highlight the names common to both the Mughals and the Indians, which are fixed in Urdu.
A complex example - "khapwa". This word was used by the Mughals, although it is Indian word. Babur called such daggers “kattara”. By the way, “kattara” and “chilana” (chilanum-parabellum ) come from “to cut.” But “khapwa” means "to kill".

[Mercenary]

I suspect that most of the swords commonly called as "patissa" and the like, known as "South Indian" swords of the 16th-17th centuries, came into collections as a result of the suppression of the Paika rebellion in Odisha (https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Paika_Rebellion) and their disarmament. The Paikas called these swords "khanda" (ଖଣ୍ଡା). Accordingly, these are khanda-swords from Odisha, 18th-19th centuries.